Humanity put climate change in a box!
If not for lack of warming we’d be cooling.
This does not look like the catastrophic climate change that wealthy Leftist democrat politicians like Al Gore and John Kerry warned us about? Even the APS (American Physical Society) is beginning to ask questions–e.g., While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…
If feedbacks are powerful and positive, the alarmist case is strong. If feedbacks are weak or negative, there is no basis for any climate scare or for trillions of dollars to be spent on curbing CO2 emissions. ~Tony Thomas, Quadrant Online
The APS would like to know: To what would you attribute the stasis? What’s with the hiatus? The GMST is just standing still. Now is the time for the government climatists of global warming alarmism to answer the APS’ big question: What are the implications of this statis for confidence in the models and their projections?
Are we in a state of perpetual climate equilibrium? If not for humanity’s miniscule contribution to Earth’s atmosphere would winters in the northern hemisphere be even colder? Did humanity cause a changeless climate with its CO2? Is the Earth really flat afterall? Is this zero-trend normal? Did we put climate in a box? Instead of status quo, would it – should it be – colder than hell right now?
This is the mildest catastrophe ever. What a mellow devastation: global warming is zip, zilch, nada! Isn’t it about time the Left admits Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb, 1968) and John Holdren (the government’s recently retired global warming science Czar) have been dead wrong about most everything? “We’ve already had too much economic growth in the US,” Ehrlich claimed. “Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.” The Left still believes this.
In the first sentence of The Population Bomb, Ehrlich wrote, as follows: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970’s and 1980’s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Obviously, Ehrlich was wrong: the latest big problem du jour is that kids are too fat.
What else was ecologist Ehrlich wrong about? How about his, Perspective on Nuclear Power: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy … would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” Oh no he di’int say that! But, he did and many on the Left agree with him still.
Ehrlich’s prediction of, the nutritional disaster, that to him seemed, likely to overtake humanity in the 1970s (or, at the latest, the 1980s), not only did not happen, today we’re absurdly turning corn into ethanol. At about the time Ehrlich’s predictions of doom were failing to materialize, the Left then gave wings to the vast tragedy of global warming! Amazingly, the Left’s solution to global warming really would create a tragic situation that rivals Ehrlich’s dire warnings–e.g., that could lead to a billion or more people starving to death, by making energy more expensive for those in the third world and developing countries.
Western academia has become the Vladimir Putin of science. They believe if us folks only knew and were capable of understanding climate change as they do we’d all be just as alarmed; but, since we don’t get it, academia will take it upon themselves to simply tell us what we must think… for our own good.
It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including politicians who want to make it seem as though they’re saving the world, environmentalists who want to raise money and get control over very large issues like our entire energy policy, media, for sensationalism, Universities and professors for grants… It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one, and it’s taken over way too much of our thought process and way too much of our priorities. ~Patrick Moore (Senate Testimony, 2-25-2014)
Despite his Malthusian warnings and call for big government programs, “hundreds of millions of people” did not die of famine as Paul Ehrlich predicted. Burt Rutan reminds us that Erhrlich’s friend, John Holdren, calculated in 1980 that famines due to climate change could leave a billion people dead by 2020. He championed “population control measures,” and believed 280 million Americans would likely be “too many.” Rutan says these Malthusians forget that, with bodies come minds, minds that can innovate, invent, find ways to farm energy, find substitutes for scarce resources and find new ways to feed people.